Community

LOL The "ISO 20022 Waiting for Godot" effect just went up another level.

You've answered your own question: The regulator stopped said fintech from using the term "bank" because the term can only be used by regulated entities, which the said fintech is not.

Moving on to Automated Savings fintechs like Jar in India and Acorn in USA. I contend that they're unregulated. 

My company partners with banks but it is not regulated. Jupiter and Chime partner with banks but that does not make them regulated.

But let that not stop you from claiming that they're all regulated and saying something in support that  eventually contradicts your claim.

Evolve. Tweak in progress. All future tense terms.

So you accept that slice and UNI are *currently unregulated* for their activity of lending. Good. That's what I've been saying all this while.

Moving on, try Neobanks like Jupiter in India, Chime in USA. I contend that they're unregulated fintechs.

Do you still contend that all fintechs are regulated?

As I said earlier, RBI recently mandated that loan should go directly from regulated entities to borrower and should not pass through loan  provider fintechs slice UNI et al. That shows that slice UNI are not regulated. 

This was implicit in my previous reference to Indian regulator's recent mandate re. Loan flow. Anyway, to make it explicit: Slice & UNI. 

You can clarify all you want but the only thing that matters is what the regulator says and, as I mentioned, its latest announcement clearly implies that fintechs are unregulated entities.

Your article opens with "Fintech is a highly regulated sector".

I made a specific comment that your premise is false. In fact, your premise goes against the founding principle of Fintech, which is that it can do what regulated entities can do but do it faster, better and cheaper than regulated entities because it is not regulated.  

Since I didn't see evidence that you got my specific comment, I gave additional context in my subsequent comment. 

Let me try with some more context.

According to the Indian banking regulator's recent mandate, "Loans must go directly from regulated entities to customer accounts. Loans cannot pass through fintechs."

It follows that fintechs are unregulated. 

QED.

#ProTip: You focus on what to write on a professional forum - Hint: No posts based on false premises - and I'll focus on what to comment on a professional forum.

Opening accounts on stolen identity a/k/a Identity Theft Fraud is an endemic problem with nearly all forms of MOPs - even nearly everything in financial services. 

Is there any evidence to suggest that Identity Theft Fraud is particularly alarming in the case of BNPL? 

Nice post. 

As a n00b, I can do with a bit of elaboration on the steps involved between order placement and order execution, so that I can understand how a trader can place an order but not execute it a/k/a indulge in spoofing.

As a retail punter, I have not seen any difference between the two steps: AFAIK, once I place a BUY order, poof it's gone, I can't stop the order from being executed by the eBroker (as long as there's sufficient funds in my account to cover the order value.)

As they say, in a democracy / capitalism, everything is allowed except that which is banned, and no regulation DOES mean not regulated.

Maybe you're stuck in the old authoritarian / commie era or whatever but startups in ecommerce, rideshare, and epharmacy began by doing stuff that was neither allowed nor banned by law a/k/a leveraged regulatory gap. They then became too big to have to comply and the rules changed to regularize their business models. Crypto did this with mixed success.

Time will tell whether fintechs can  pull off the same strategy - but I'm hopeful: The history of VC-backed industries has shown that, when you alleviate a compelling pain area of the market, you'll always find a way to succeed despite periodic PITA moves by the regulator.